All presentations are available on the PPF5 website : ppf5.rs

Project funded byThe European Union

Government of the Republic of SerbiaEuropean Integration Office

All presentations are available on the PPF5 website: www.ppf5.rs

European UnionRegional Development and

Cohesion Policy (II)Belgrade, 11 April 2014

Paolo ROSSO


Government of the Republic of Serbia

European Integration Office

Topics for Today Discussion• The Operational Programme• Implementation set-up• A case Study: Ireland• CLLD – Community Led Local Development• ITI – Integrated Territorial Investments




ESI FundsProgramme Structure




Programme Content

(Art 96 CPR)

The OP must contain a justification for the choice of thematic objectives, corresponding investment priorities and financial allocations having regard to the Partnership Agreement




Programme Content

For each priority axis: 1. the investment priorities and corresponding specific objectives2. the expected results for the specific objectives, and the corresponding result

indicators, with a baseline value and a target value3. a description of the type and examples of actions to be supported under each

investment priority including the guiding principles for the selection of operations4. the output indicators, including the quantified target value5. milestones and targets for the performance framework6. the categories of intervention, and an indicative breakdown of the programmed

resources7. where appropriate,a summary of the planned use of technical assistance including,

where necessary, actions to reinforce the administrative capacity of authorities involved in the management and control of the programmes and beneficiaries




Financing plan containing: 1. tables specifying for each year the amount of the total financial appropriation

envisaged for the support from each of the Funds, identifying the amounts related to the performance reserve

2. tables specifying, for the whole programming period, for the operational programme and for each priority axis, the amount of the total financial appropriation of the support from each of the Funds and the national co- financing, identifying the amounts related to the performance reserve

3. Where the national co-financing is made up of public and private co-financing, the table shall give the indicative breakdown between the public and the private components. It shall show, for information purposes, the envisaged participation from the EIB

Programme Content




List of major projects for which the implementation is planned during the programming period.

Integrated approach to territorial development, having regard to the Partnership Agreement, and showing how that operational programme contributes to the accomplishment of its objectives and expected results, detailing: • community-led local development instruments• indicative amount of the ERDF support for integrated actions for sustainable urban

development• the approach to the use of the ITI instrument and their indicative financial allocation

from each priority axis • the arrangements for interregional and transnational actions• where participating in macro- regional strategies and sea-basin strategies the

contribution of the planned interventions under the programme to such strategies

Programme Content




The OP must identify:

• the managing authority, the certifying authority, where applicable, and the audit authority

• the body to which payments are to be made by the Commission• the actions taken to involve the relevant partners in the preparation of the

operational programme, and the role of those partners in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the operational programme

Programme Content




The OP shall also set out the following:

1. mechanisms to ensure coordination between the Funds, the EAFRD, the EMFF and other Union and national funding instruments, and with the EIB taking into account the relevant provisions laid down in the CSF

2. ex ante conditionality: assessment of whether the ex ante conditionality is fulfilled

3. a summary of the assessment of the administrative burden on beneficiaries and, where necessary, the actions planned, accompanied by an indicative timeframe, to reduce the administrative burden

Programme Content




ESI FundsImplementation set-up




Managing Authority

Certifying Authority

Audit Authority

For each Operational Programme

Monitoring committee

The MC monitors the “effectivenessand quality of the implementation of the operational Programme”

[Art. 110, Reg. 1303/2013]




A national, regional or local public authority or a public or private body designated by the Member State to manage the operational programme

The MA is responsible for managing and implementing the operational programme in accordance with the principle of sound financial management

[Art. 123 Reg. 1303/2013]

Managing Authority




National, regional or local public authority or body designated by the Member State to certify statement of expenditure and applications for payment before they are sent to the Commission

[Art. 123 Reg. 1303/2013]

Certifying Authority




National, regional or local public authority or body, functionally independent of the managing authority and the certifying authority, designated by the Member State for each operational programme and responsible for verifying the effective functioning of the management and control system

[Art. 123 Reg. 1303/2013]

Audit Authority







SSFF Programmes in Ireland 2007-2013Ireland has been allocated in total €901m in European Union Structural Funds€750m earmarked for the two Regional programmes andthe national Social Fund programmeThe regional breakdown of this sum is €458m for the BMW Region €292m for the S&E region

Managing SSFFThe Irish case




SSFF Programmes in Ireland 2007-2013 50% of the funding is to be allocated to labour market activity funded

by the European Social Fund (ESF) 50% to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). €151m is for smaller Territorial Co-operation programmes, including

the PEACE and ETC programmes

Total programme amounts to €2.6 billion of which the EU Structural Funds contribution is €750 million

The Irish case




SSFF Programmes in Ireland 2007-2013The strategic focus of the NSRF is European Social Fund (ESF)Human Capital Investment – Up-skilling the workforce and increasing the participation and activation of groups outside the workforce European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

• Innovation, knowledge and entrepreneurship• Strengthening the competitiveness and connectivity of the NSS

Gateways and Hubs through improved access to quality infrastructure and environmental and sustainable development

The Irish case




Roles and responsibilities of Managing Authorities, Intermediate Bodies, Public Beneficiary Bodies and other Implementing Departments/Bodies involved in the financial management and control of EU Structural Funds.

Ministry of Finance CIRCULAR 12/2008: financial management and control procedures for the EU structural funds programmes 2007-2013

Department of Finance, as Member State Authority, has overall policy responsibility for the Structural Funds and has primary responsibility for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has primary responsibility for the European Social Fund (ESF)

The Irish case




Ministry of Finance CIRCULAR 12/2008: financial management and control procedures for the EU structural funds programmes 2007-2013

Implementation and monitoring of required financial management and control systems

Processing and certification of expenditure claims for payments

The Irish case




The Management and Control system for EU Structural Funds co-financed activities in Ireland is based on the principle of shared responsibilities based on delegation and Administrative Agreements:

each level of the financial management and control cascade must take responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of the management and control system are adhered to at their own levels and that EU and National rules are complied with

The Irish case




The day-to-day responsibility for the implementation of co-financed activities rests with the appropriate statutory bodies i.e. Government Departments, Agencies and Authorities.These bodies are also accountable both to the Oireachtas and to the Comptroller & Auditor General for the National/Exchequer contribution of the co-financed activities

The Irish case




The Irish caseDesignated Authorities for Ireland’s EU Structural Funds Programmes 2007-2013

Operational Programme

Managing Authority Certifying Authority Audit Authority

Human Capital Investment Operational Programme

Dept. of Enterprise, Trade and

Employment

Dept. of Enterprise, Trade and

Employment

ESF Financial Control Unit, Department of

Enterprise, Trade and Employment

BMW Operational Programme

BMW Regional Assembly

Dept. of Finance ERDF Financial Control Unit,

Department of Finance

S&E Operational Programme

S&E Regional Assembly

Dept. of Finance ERDF Financial Control Unit,

Department of Finance




Before the submission of the first interim application for payment or at the latest, within twelve months of the approval of each ERDF and ESF OPs, the respective AA shall submit to the European Commission a description of the systems covering in particular the organisation and procedures of the Managing Authorities, Certifying Authorities, Intermediate Bodies, the Audit Authorities and any other bodies carrying out audits under its responsibilitySuch description shall be accompanied by a report setting out the results of an assessment of the systems set up and giving an opinion on their compliance with the Regulations

The Irish case




The report and the opinion shall be drawn up by the ERDF Audit Authority for the European Regional Development Fund and by the ESF Audit Authority for the European Social Fund

The Audit Authorities shall carry out their work taking account of internationally accepted auditing standards.In Ireland, the ERDF and ESF Financial Control Units are the designated Compliance Assessment Bodies for the ERDF/ESF co-financed Operational Programmes and Initiatives

The Irish case




The Managing Authorities are required to ensure that all Intermediate and Public Beneficiary Bodies, responsible for implementing the EU Structural Funds co-financed projects/operations in their Operational Programmes, comply with the requirements of rule in place. Managing Authorities will be requested to demonstrate to the appropriate Certifying Authority the steps they have taken to this end.

Managing Authorities have responsibility for managing and implementing the Operational Programme in accordance with the principle of sound financial management

The Irish caseResponsibilities of the Managing Authorities




Managing Authorities are required to Ensure that systems are in place to implement the statutory financial

management and control obligations relating to Structural Funds expenditure

Submit eligible expenditure declarations in the required format to the Certifying Authority to facilitate the drawdown of EU Structural Funds and ensuring that an adequate audit trail exists

Provide guidelines/training on financial management and controls





While Managing Authorities retain overall responsibility for their functions the execution of some tasks in whole or in part may be delegated to the Intermediate Bodies and or to the Public Beneficiary Bodies. The arrangements for the exercise of the delegated functions will be detailed in the Administrative Agreements.





The Intermediate Bodies shall be responsible for submitting eligible expenditure declarations in the format required by the Certifying Authority, to the Managing Authority to facilitate the drawdown of EU Structural FundsThe detail in relation to the responsibilities of the Intermediate Bodies are set out in the specific Administrative Agreements agreed between the Managing Authorities and each individual Intermediate Body

The Irish caseResponsibilities of Intermediate Bodies




The Intermediate Bodies will be responsible for Ensuring that all payment claims for Structural Fund expenditure,

submitted by Public Beneficiary Bodies are supported by original receipted invoices or, where this cannot be done, by accounting documents of equivalent probative value and audit documents, and that a clear audit trail exists

Ensuring in respect of co-financed projects/operations that only eligible expenditure actually incurred is submitted to the Managing Authority

The recorded verification of expenditure incurred and declared by Public Beneficiaries Bodies

The Irish caseResponsibilities of Intermediate Bodies




The Public Beneficiary Bodies will be responsible for ensuring that only eligible expenditure actually incurred, and expenditure which comes under the terms of the project/operation as approved by the Intermediate Body, is declaredThey will be required to ensure that a clear audit trail exists in relation to EU Structural Funds and that all claims are supported by receipted invoices or, where this cannot be done, by accounting documents of equivalent probative valueThe detail in relation to the responsibilities of the Beneficiary Bodies may be set out in the Administrative Agreements or formal grant agreements, as appropriate, with the Intermediate Bodies/Managing Authorities

The Irish caseResponsibilities of Public Beneficiary Bodies




The Public Beneficiary Bodies will be responsible for ensuring that only eligible expenditure actually incurred, and expenditure which comes under the terms of the project/operation as approved by the Intermediate Body, is declared.They will be required to ensure that a clear audit trail exists in relation to EU Structural Funds and that all claims are supported by receipted invoices or, where this cannot be done, by accounting documents of equivalent probative value.The detail in relation to the responsibilities of the Beneficiary Bodies may be set out in the Administrative Agreements or formal grant agreements, as appropriate, with the Intermediate Bodies/Managing Authorities.

The Irish caseResponsibilities of Public Beneficiary Bodies

In the Irish context, the Department is making the distinction that the Level 1 Reporting Body will be the Public Beneficiary Body in the Financial Management and Control Cascade System. There may be other BeneficiaryBodies at a level below.




The Beneficiary will be responsible for ensuring that only eligible expenditure actually incurred, and expenditure which comes under the terms of the project/operation as approved by the Public Beneficiary Body, is declared. They will be required to ensure that a clear audit trail exists in relation to EU Structural Funds and that all claims are supported by receipted invoices or, where this cannot be done, by accounting documents of equivalent probative value

The Irish caseResponsibilities of Beneficiary




The Certifying Authorities are responsible for Certifying declarations of expenditure and applications for payment

before they are sent to the European Commission. Certifying that:

(i) the statement of expenditure is accurate, results from reliable accounting systems and is based on verifiable supporting documents(ii) the expenditure declared complies with applicable European Commission and National rules and has been incurred in respect of projects/operations selected for funding in accordance with the criteria applicable to the programme and complying with European Commission and National rules

Ensuring for the purposes of certification that it has received adequate information from the Managing Authority on the procedures and verifications carried out in relation to expenditure included in statements of expenditure

The Irish caseResponsibilities of Certifying Authority




The Audit Authorities are primarily responsible for Ensuring that audits are carried out to verify the effective functioning of

the management and control system of the Operational Programme Ensuring that audits are carried out on projects/operations on the

basis of an appropriate sample to verify expenditure declared

The Irish caseResponsibilities of Audit Authority




Requirement for an audit strategyEU Regulations require that the Audit Authority present an audit strategy to the European Commission within nine months of the approval of the Operational Programme.





Requirement for an annual control reportEach year from 2008 to 2015 the Audit Authority must submit an Annual Control Report to the European Commission.The report will include an opinion, based on the audits that have been carried out under its responsibility, as to whether the management and control system functions effectively, so as to provide a reasonable assurance that statements of expenditure presented to the European Commission are correct and as a consequence reasonable assurance that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.





The role of audits in the effective functioning of the management and control systemThe Audit Authority of an Operational Programme shall be responsible for ensuring that audits are carried out to verify the effective functioning of the management and control system of the Operational Programme.





Operational Programme Monitoring Committees shall satisfy themselves as to the effectiveness and quality of the implementation of EU co-financed expenditure, in accordance with the following provisions.The Monitoring Committee shall:a. Consider and approve the criteria for selecting the operations

financed within six months of the approval of the Operational Programme and approve any revision of those criteria in accordance with programming needs

b. Periodically review progress made towards achieving the specific targets of the Operational Programme on the basis of documents submitted by the Managing Authority

The Irish caseMonitoring Committee




c. Examine the results of implementation, particularly achievement of the targets set for each priority axis and the evaluations

d. Consider and approve the annual and final reports on implementatione. Be informed of the Annual Control Report, or of the part of the report

referring to the Operational Programme concerned, and of any relevant comments the European Commission may make after examining that report or relating to that part of the report

f. Propose to the Managing Authority any revision or examination of the Operational Programme likely to make possible the attainment of the Funds’ objectives or to improve its management

g. Consider and approve any proposal to amend the content of the European Commission decision on the contribution of the Funds

The Irish caseMonitoring Committee




In Ireland at the National level, a Committee on the Co-ordination of EU Funds was established to address co-operation and demarcation issues between ERDF/ESF, EFF and EAFRD. The role of the Committee is to put in place, where necessary, appropriate systems to address these issues in the Operational Programmes, and address any implementation issues that may warrant demarcation in the Operational Programmes and any plans for new programmes to ensure that the Funds are not overlapping

The Irish caseCommittee on the Co-ordination of EU funds







Community Led Local Development (CLLD)




Tackle specific development issues a local scale, pursuing an integrated effort among local actors accordng to a bottom up principle.

Key elements: Local Action Group Community Led Local Development Strategy Community-led local development can be supported by the ESI Funds

and can be carried out under one or more priorities of the relevant programme or programmes in accordance with Fund-specific rules of the ESI Funds concerned (Art 32. CPR)

CLLD - Basics




What should Local Action Groups be doing?1) Capacity-building2) Assessing quality and relevance of a project for a Local Development

Strategy3) Selection of projects4) Monitoring implementation of LDS

What else can be delegated to Local Action Groups: 5) Checks of eligibility / legality6) Formal project approval7) Certification and payment to beneficiaries

These tasks require the designation as intermediate body

CLLD - Decentralised




Support capacity-building at all implementation levels• Raise awareness of specificities of CLLD for all players involved in CLLD: MAs,

Pas, Audit Authorities, LAGs/ project promoters Clear division of responsibilities, avoid duplication Reduce administrative burden for all

Simplify procedures for public co-financing Simplified procedures for small projects Simplified cost options (small projects, running costs, etc.) Speed of overall approval process and payments Encourage advance payments (to LAGs and beneficiaries)

Keep additional rules to necessary minimum Avoid restrictions of eligibility which limits the capacity of the LAGs to respond to local

needs and support innovation Evaluate efficiency of delivery systems

CLLD – Efficiency




Coordination mechanisms for CLLD at national or regional level covering several ESI-Funds

Required: coordination mechanism for CLLD involving all relevant MAs

• Optional: joint monitoring committee for CLLD

Possible: further coordination using specific/ joint intermediate body for CLLD at sub-national level

• Facilitates coordination; provides a single interlocuteur for LAGs

Lead Fund option for multi-funded LDS • Simplification: running and animation costs for the LDS

financed from one Fund only

CLLDFund Coordination




Four types of support• Preparatory support• Implementation of the local development strategies• Cooperation projects and their preparation• Running costs and animation

Reducing risk• Ensuring all levels have a shared and clear

understanding of eligibility• Getting eligibility clear from the outset

CLLDSupport measures




Offered as a coherent set of actions coordinated between the different Funds

Calls for expression of interest Support covering:

Training actions to prepare local actors Studies of the area concerned Elaboration of the strategy (consultancy costs, public relations,

etc.) Administrative costs of a structure that is applying for preparatory

support (operating and personnel costs)

CLLDPreparatory Support




Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI)




Multi-dimensional approach, tailored to place-specific features and outcomes, which may mean going beyond traditional administrative boundaries, and may require greater willingness from different levels of government to co-operate and co-ordinate actions in order to achieve shared goals

Flexible mechanism for formulating integrated responses to diverse territorial needs

ITI – Basics




Allows EU Member States to combine investments from several priority axes of one or more Operational Programmes for the purposes of multi-dimensional and cross-sectoral intervention. The ability to trace the allocation of funds to the various investment priorities will however still be retained

ITI – Combine resources




ITIs can only be effectively used if the specific geographical area concerned has an integrated, cross-sectoral territorial strategy

ITI – Precondition




A designated territory and an integrated territorial development strategy

A package of actions to be implemented Governance arrangements to manage the ITI

ITI – Key Elements




Any geographical area with particular territorial features can be the subject of an ITI, ranging from specific urban neighbourhoods with multiple deprivations to the urban, metropolitan, urban-rural, sub-regional, or inter-regional levels. An ITI can also deliver integrated actions in detached geographical units with similar characteristics within a region (e.g. a network of small or medium-sized cities). It is not compulsory for an ITI to cover the whole territory of an administrative unit.

ITIA territory and a strategy




The actions to be implemented through ITI shall contribute to the thematic objectives of the relevant priority axes of the participating Operational Programme(s), as well as the development objectives of the territorial strategy.

ITIA package of actions




Intermediary bodies, including local authorities, regional development bodies or non-governmental organisations, to carry out some or all of the management and implementation tasks

ITIGovernance arrangements




ITI




The ITI as an instrument promoting the integrated use of Funds has the potential to lead to a better aggregate outcome for the same amount of public investment.

The possible delegation of management of ITIs empowers sub-regional actors (local/urban stakeholders) by ensuring their involvement and ownership of programme preparation and implementation.

ITIFinal Remarks




Just to conclude….

EU Policy areas




Thank You….

[email protected]

+39 348 2634365

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

All presentations are available on the PPF5 website : ppf5.rs